I wrote Vladimir (whom I assume is bilingual) a very sweet letter telling him
how much I usually enjoy his column. However, I noted that if he's going to write
for The Wall Street Journal, he should sharpen his understanding of private
property rights: i.e., Microsoft built and owns an OS that belongs to Microsoft.
Not to you or me or the government.
They can adorn it any way they want,
I suggested to this pillager of private property, in order to present a more
attractive or even less attractive choice to the consumer. It belongs to them
like your pocket handkerchief belongs to you. They are allowed by the tenets of
capitalism to enhance, reduce, or eliminate compatibility with other consumer
choices — as long as they don't use a gun or knife to bolster sales. The
marketplace will speak for the consumer as it always has. "Hmmm, I love that OS,
but now I can't use browser X or whatchamacallit Y, so I won't buy the OS."
That's choice enough.
The song that the Microsoft critics sing, once it's
decoded, is really a hymn of praise to that golden operating system. Evidently,
it's so good that people would buy it even if it came wrapped in Bill Gates'
unwashed underwear.
And why is there so much religious passion in the tone
of the Microsoft critics? Why is it so difficult to understand that the
marketplace is a far better evaluator of Microsoft's product than a federal judge
who tries to synthesize, express, and enforce the whims of 20 million consumers
whom he's never talked to? I don't get it. (And by the way, I have an iMac so
there's no chauvinism in my attitude.)
There's not a lick of logic in
Vladimir's exposition of Microsoft's villainy. His basic contention is that
Microsoft, this wildly successful provider of services, discourages the use of
competing auxiliary software like Web browsers and instant messaging, which
customers would have to buy separately, at extra cost and risk technical
problems. So? When the pain of incompatibility exceeds the gain provided by
nimble software — don't worry — Billy G will get the message in his
pocketbook like you get a 6 a.m. wake-up call on your clock radio. He'll be
forced to mount that OS on a disc and make it a frisbee.
"They should
require the software monopoly to expand consumer choice," says Vladimir L. Gulp!
What a mouthful of nonsense for a Wall Street Journal journalist. Expand consumer
choice? That's a governmental prerogative? What Bill of Rights, what Declaration
of Independence does Vladimir or the federal court read? Show me the words,
please.
Here's an analogy. General Motors manufactures vehicles —
including an operating system called a Chevy. Well, what if Chevy only sculpted
their rims for one kind of tire — say Michelins. Or say the General Motors
CEO called up the Michelin CEO and said, "Mich, tell you what I'll do. I'll put a
notch and groove arrangement on my rims such that only Michelins fit. In return
you must only sell Michelins to me. Your tire will be the original equipment.
Your tire will be the only equipment forever and ever. And you and I and our 20
million shareholders will be happy and rich forever and ever."
Would GM do
that? Why not? Some consumers who want a Goodyear tire would cold-shoulder the
Chevy. The price of incompatibility in their eyes would outweigh the attraction
of that nifty Chevy. Drivers who want a choice of original or replacement
rubberware will avoid Chevies like they avoid a ditch beside the highway.
The consumer rules! That's as it should be. It's called a free
marketplace.
And what about that sound system and temperature system in my
new Chevy? Wonder if it's made by Chevy or any manufacturer with whom they've
made a deal. Wonder if a Bose (my preference) is compatible with a 2002 Chevy? Of
course it is, for a price. So is X, Y, and Z with my Windows OS.
How about
your daily newspaper with your favorite columnist? How about The Wall Street
Journal that hosts Mr. L? He's as bundled as a Microsoft OS. I must buy the whole
Wall Street Journal to read Vladimir. Why can't he be forced by a
consumer-friendly government to unbundle his column? Microsoft, says the courts,
"violated the antitrust laws by integrating its web browser into its Windows OS
in an effort to freeze out other browsers."
Well, substitute Vladimir L's
column for Web browser and Wall Street Journal for the Windows OS and it's a
"gotcha!" If I want to read Vladimir, I must buy the entire Wall Street Journal
to get his words. What about Trevor T? He's a really sharp computer columnist,
but he doesn't write for the Journal. How fair is that to a technology-hungry
consumer? Why don't they make Vladimir unbundle himself?
I just don't get
it. We should take this choice out of the computer user's hands and place it
before a federal judge who thinks a browser is a large quadruped that loves
clover? Why doesn't he go after Campbell's Corporation — they've been
getting away with bundling pork and beans for years.
